rvwnsd

@BasketBaller, I've enjoyed following the serial of your boys' journey toward first-time separation and your journey toward having an empty nest. Until @WmClarke posted this picture, it hadn't completely registered that one of your sons is attending DePaul. I started my college career at DePaul. It is a very good school, particularly in the areas of Business, Computer Science, and Theatre. For me, Loyola was a better fit and so in my junior year, I transferred there. Nonetheless, he made an excellent choice. DePaul has done a very good job of integrating itself into the greater Chicagoland community. Unlike other urban universities that built walled-off islands, DePaul has built campuses that blend into the neighborhood. To me, it makes for a rich experience. I hope he enjoys this new chapter. I also hope you take advantage of the opportunity to visit him and experience what a beautiful city Chicago is. EDIT: The building depicted in @WmClarke's picture was a neglected former department store before DePaul renovated it into classrooms and a bookstore. They've done an excellent job of re-purposing existing buildings while expanding their Loop campus. When I attended Loyola, the joke was that DePaul was known for its basketball team, but we were known for our transplant programs. (LU has a medical school and at the time ran a hospital) Now, DePaul's preservation of historic and meaningful architecture is as well-known as its sports team.

Thank you!

On Monday, I said to hell with allergies and brought home these little guys: They are three pounds each and two bundles of fur and fun.

You should see what he does with a baguette.

Thanks for your commentary. I just moved to Phoenix and have been intrigued, but unsure. Now I'm less unsure about hiring him. Thanks again.

In addition to @Kevin Slater's example, when measuring performance one can, in fact, give 110%. For example, if an employee is expected to do 2,080 hours of work per year and instead did 2,288 hours of work then he did give 110%.

After reading @Chad Constantine's quote, I don't agree with the assessment that he is part of the "condom police." He stated that a condom must be used when he is having sex and went on to say: I have a very visceral physical reaction to blood and gore. Like @Chad Constantine's practice of always using a condom, I simply do not watch/read that type of media. That does not mean I am a member of the anti-violence police.

When was the last time you tried adding a favorite? I just added two favorites a few minutes ago. The function was not working very well the first day or two after the change.

Which one? There are three Brandons.

I never understood the "yours very truly," either.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, one of the definitions of the word "find" is "attain, reach." Therefore, an email can, in fact, find something - such as its recipient. The example given in the definition is "the bullet found its mark." However, the example sentence could easily have been "The email found its recipient." In the case of "...this email finds you well," the word "well" modified the word "you." Lastly, I've heard the sentence "I hope this letter finds you well" spoken in old movies. This is not a new expression.

The following is courtesy of "All Things Linguistic" "‘No problem’, coming from a millennial’s mouth, within the context of helping someone – whether it be holding a door open/picking up something someone may have dropped/etc. – and, naturally, being thanked for it, implies that the kind gesture was indeed, not a problem, that it was just the thing to do, that they were happy to help and that no thanks was really necessary. While a Baby Boomer’s ‘You’re welcome’ in contrast, says something miles different, it actually highlights the fact that the person went out of their way to help someone; almost brings attention to it in a way, saying 'Yeah, I helped you, I did you this favor I accept your thanks.’ which, malicious intent or not, is strikingly different than the millennial downplay of their act of kindness for the sake of helping someone." In other words, the use of "no problem" is akin to saying "it is my pleasure" or "don't mention it." Both expressions pre-date the common use of "you are welcome." Here is the entire article.

http://www.engrish.com/wp-content/uploads//2017/05/Shady-Hotel.jpg

http://www.engrish.com/wp-content/uploads//2017/06/screw-china.jpg

Happy birthday, gentlemen.

http://morningmail.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/gender-confusion-e1434208315616.gif

Welcome to the Forum as a contributing member. No info on the escort, though. Happy hunting!!

I had the same experience as @dutchal had when I hired him a couple of years ago. He's on the list to hire again when he is visiting.

Hey, you tried!!! And no experience here. I can see why the "handler" would be off-putting, but if he seems to be that close to what you are looking for he might be worth a try.

Not entirely true. Here is a synopsis of California law: To be prosecuted under the law, you would have to do all of the following: Have anal or vaginal sex. You cannot be prosecuted for oral sex. As to anal and vaginal sex, the law applies equally to men and women; tops and bottoms. The law punishes exposing someone to HIV through these types of sex. Your sexual partner does not have to actually become infected. Know that you are HIV-positive. You cannot be prosecuted for sex that you had before you knew that you were HIV-positive. Fail to disclose your HIV status. If you disclose before insertion, you cannot be prosecuted. Fail to use a condom. Even if you do not disclose, you cannot be prosecuted unless you have "unprotected sex." The law defines "unprotected sex" as failing to use a condom. This means that every inserting penis has to be covered. Even if you are on the receiving end, you have a legal obligation to make sure that your partner wears a condom. Have the "specific intent" to infect the other person. Most likely, this element will prevent the statute from being used to harass people living with HIV. To be prosecuted, you have to engage in the sexual activity with the specific intention of infecting the other person with HIV. Just knowing that you had HIV when you had sex will not be enough. The law explicitly states that: "Evidence that the person had knowledge of his or her HIV-positive status, without additional evidence, shall not be sufficient to prove specific intent." The summary is courtesy of "The Body," which bills itself as the complete HIV and AIDS resource. I can't recall reading a post where a poster got mad that another poster mentioned the California state law. There are folks who do not like the law, however. You are responsible for your own health. No one has said you are responsible for your own health so that someone else does not have to feel guilty. Acquiring the HIV virus does not equate to having AIDS. That was proven 20 years ago. This statement is incorrect. Willful exposure is not considered assault with a deadly weapon and the punishment is not up to 20 years in jail. Here's a chart from a paper published by the Williams Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles in 2015: You might also be interested in learning that California is considering reducing the classification from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Two of the requirements of using Truvada as PrEP are quarterly blood and urine tests. In addition to an HIV test, the tests screen for a decline in kidney function. A physician will stop prescribing Truvada long before their patient experiences kidney failure. By the way - Truvada does not screen anything. It has been shown to be effective in preventing a person who has been exposed to the HIV virus from contracting it. It does not prevent a person who has been exposed to other STI's from contracting them.